HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-08-03 City Council (15)City of Palo Alto
C ty Manager’s Report
TO:HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL 14
FROM:
AGENDA DATE:
SUBJECT:
CITY MANAGER ¯ DEPARTMENT: PLANNING AND
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
AUGUST 3, 1998 CMR:337:98
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL APPROVAL FOR: (1)
AMENDMENT TO DAMES & MOORE CONTRACT FOR
.SERVICES TO COMPLETE THE HISTORIC INVENTORY
AND (2) BUDGET AMENDMENT ORDINANCE OF $437,400 IN
ASSOCIATION WITH THE HISTORIC INVENTORY UPDATE
REPORT IN BRIEF
This report forwards to the City Council staff recommendations on amending the contract
with the consultant firm Dames & Moore to complete the Historic Inventory project. The
report responds to: 1) the City Council directive of May 26, 1998, to delay action on adoption
of the permanent historic regulations until properties likely to be recommended for inclusion
on the Historic Inventory have been identified, and to complete the Historic Inventory
project; and 2) the Council directive on July 13, 1998, to provide an assessment of the
implications of adopting permanent historic regulations to go into effect by March 31, 1999,
with an alternative effective date of December 31, 1998 also to be considered.
Two options for completing the Historic Inventory project are identified. In both options,
Study Priority 1 properties likely to be recommended for inclusion on the City’s Historic
Inventory would be identified by October 15, 1998, and in both options, the permanent
Historic Ordinance would be reviewed and adopted to be in effect by March 31, 1999. In
Option 1, by January 15, 1999, State form DPR523A would be completed for each of the
recommended Study Priority 1 properties. This form provides a detailed physical description
and photograph of the property. Final evaluations and completion of State documentation
on the recommended Study Priority 1 properties would be competed by July 31, 1999,
CMR:337:98 Page 1 of 15
followed by a public hearing process to consider adoption of individual propertie~ to the
Historic Inventory. ....... :
Option 2 provides, by January 15, 1999, a list of both Study Priority 1 and 2 properties that
are likely to be recommended for inclusion on the City’s Historic Inventory. Final
evaluations and completion of State documentation on the recommended Study Priority 1 and
2 properties would be competed by September 30, 1999, followed by a public hearing
process to consider adoption of individual properties to the Historic Inventory.
This report recommends Council approval of Option 2 and requests adoption of a Budget
Amendment Order not to exceed $437,400, with the exact amount to be consistent with the
program option selected by the City Council.
CMR:337:98 Page 2 of 15
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council: 1) approve Option 2, assuming an adoption date of
March 31, 1999 for the permanent Historic Ordinance, and requiring completion of the
Historic Inventory by September 30, 1999; 2) adopt a Budget Amendment Ordinance (BAO),
not to exceed $437,400, to fund continued Historic Inventory work by Dames & Moore and
to fund part-time, temporary workers and supplies to assist with the volunteer research effort;
and 3) authorize the City Manager to sign the amendment to the Dames & Moore contract,
with a scope of services to complete the Historic Inventory, consistent with the option
selected.
BACKGROUND
In August 1997, the City Council approved a contract with Dames & Moore Group to
conduct an update of the Historic Inventory and prepare revisions to the Historic Preservation
Ordinance. The originally approved program provided for the adoption of the revised
Historic Ordinance in early 1998, with the consultant’s work on the Historic Inventory to end
in August, 1998, followed by adoption of additional properties to the Historic Inventory.
That contract did not require completion of Study Priority 1 and 2 work, due to the
uncertainty over the amount of research that would result from the volunteer program that
is an integral part of the scope of work.
The aim of the historic survey project, as provided in the originally-approved scope of
services, was to conduct a comprehensive survey of all pre-1948 properties in the entire City,
identify those that had potential historic significance, and complete an intensive survey and
preparation of State DPR523 forms for as many properties as the time and budget allowed.
The project was designed with a heavy emphasis on organizing and training of local
volunteers under the direction of Palo Alto Stanford Heritage (PAST) and Palo Alto
Historical Association (PAHA), so that completion of the intensive survey and documenting
of historic resources would continue beyond the end of the current project. This sequential
approach to completion of an historic survey is typical of most cities, where surveys usually
take several years. Resources usually are not authorized or available to complete-an
intensive survey of an entire city at one time. Between August 1997 and May 1998, Dames
& Moore completed a reconnaissance survey on 6,600 properties, identifying approximately
650 properties (Study Priority 1) that are likely to be eligible for inclusion on the Historic
Inventory, based on architectural merit. The consultant completed field research on virtually
all of the 650 Study Priority 1 properties, and began the intensive archival research required
to complete the recommendation of inclusion on the Historic Inventory. In addition, the
consultant identified approximately 2,700 properties (Study Priority 2) as retaining integrity
and possibly eligible for inclusion on the Historic Inventory.
On May 26, 1998, Council directed Planning staffto work with Dames & Moore to change
course on the Historic Inventory project, to reduce the number of properties in the Study
Priority 2 category and then proceed towards completion of the survey of both Study Priority
CMR:337:98 Page 3 of 15
1 and 2 properties by June 30, 1999. In response to staffs request, Dames & Moore provided
a revised scope of work, which included: 1) assistance and support to the volunteer efforts
in conducting research on Study Priority 1 properties; 2) related research and development
with the State Office of Historic Preservation an accelerated approach to identifying Study
Priority 2 properties that have historic significance; 3) revision of Study Priority 1 and 2
lists; and 4)preparation of a scope of work to complete the historic survey for Study Priority
1 and 2 properties by June 30, 1999. An interim contract to begin this work was approved
by the City Manager on June 8, 1998.
On July 6, 1998, Council reviewed the extension of the Interim Historic Ordinance and
related Regulations. After hearing public testimony, Council continued consideration of the
item to July 13, 1998. On July 13, 1998, extended the Interim Ordinance and Regulations
through March 31, 1999, after lengthy consideration of an alternative December 31, 1998
sunset date. Council directed staffto return with a discussion of the implications of adopting
the permanent Historic Ordinance by December 31, 1998 instead of March 31, 1999, and
with proposed revisions to the Interim Ordinance and Regulations. ¯
Between May 1998 and the present, the consultant has cbntinued with training of volunteers
and with completing the archival research for Study Priority 1 properties. While archival
research has been completed on a number of Study Priority 1 properties, responding to the
changes in work scope required by the City has precluded completion of any
recommendation for specific properties for inclusion on the Historic Inventory. The
consultant spent considerable time as well with officials from the State to develop a
methodology to "fast track" archival research required for Study Priority 2 properties.
DISCUSSION
The Council indicated when it postponed action on the permanent Historic Ordinance on
May 26, 1998 that it ideally wanted to have a preliminary list of properties that were likely
to be recommended for inclusion on the Historic Inventory before deliberating upon and
adopting the permanent Historic Ordinance.
Dames & Moore staff were asked to considerhow to produce the most extensive list of
potentially eligibleproperties that could be provided by October 15, 1998, with emphasis on
completing the Study Priority 1 list. the October 15 deadline was based on Council’s
expressed desire to be able to consider a draft permanent Ordinance to go into effect by
December 31, 1998. Dames & Moore proposed assessing all the Study Priority 1 properties
and providing a preliminary recommendation for properties to be ,added to the Historic
Inventory on the basis of architecture, design or construction, the most common criterion for
eligibility. (Ttiere are three National Register criteria for assessing eligibility: Criterion A,
association with significant events; Criterion B, association with significant persons; and
Criterion’C, significant architecture, design or construction.) The consultant would provide
1) a list of Study Priority 1 properties recommended as eligible for the Historic Inventory;
CMR:337:98 Page 4 of 15
and 2) a report describing the methodology used to assess eligibility; and 3) a table showing
the basic data and on-going research status of each property. However, the consultant cannot
provide full documentation on individual properties and an evaluation of historical merit on
all 3 criteria by this date.
This would end uncertainty for nearly all owners of Study Priority 1 properties by October
15, 1998, as to whether their property would be recommended for the Historic Inventory.
Since this assessment is done only on the basis of architectural significance and does not
include an assessment of possible historic significance based upon association with
historically significant events or people, it is technically considered preliminary. However,
very few of the Study Priority 1 properties are likely to be eligible under these additional
criteria that are not already eligible based upon the visual assessment of architectural merit.
Options for Completing the Historic Inventory
A detailed status.report, Background and Future Work forHistoric Inventory Project, has
been prepared by the consultant and is attached to this report as Attachment B. In response
to Council’s expressed interest both in obtaining information from the survey that would be
helpful in adopting the revised Historic Ordinance in the next few months and in reducing
uncertainty for property owners about potential eligibility of their properties, the report
proposes two alternative courses of action for completing the historic survey, Options 1 and
2 summarized in the table below.
Option I
Option 1 continues to address only Study Priority 1 properties that were recommended as
potentially eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the Historic
Inventory on the October 15, 1998 List.
Option 1." Phase 1 (October 15, 1998-January 15, 1999)
In this phase Dames & Moore would complete the Primary Record (DPR523A) for each
Study Priority 1 property, by January 15, 1999, so that this information would be available
to the public and the Council during discussion and adoption of the Historic Ordinance prior
to March 31, 1999. The Primary Record includes a detailed description of the physical
characteristics of the property and a photograph. (Attachment C contains a sample form
DPR523A and B. See pages 12-13 of Attachment B, Status Repori, for a more detailed
description of DPR523A and B).
This task, while providing no new information about the eligibility of properties for the
NRHP or the Historic Inventory, does present the Council, property owners, and the general
public with a visual record and physical description of the properties identified as potentially
eligible for the Historic Inventory. This information should facilitate the public review
process and adoption of the Historic Ordinance by providing an accessible reference to
properties potentially subject to the Ordinance.
CMR:337:98 Page 5 of 15
Because the Primary Record (DPR523A) is the basic element of the recordation process,
these can be submitted to the State Office of Historic Preservation and become part of the
California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR). There are no regulatory impacts
associated with properties being listed on the CRHR, other than regulations that may be
imposed by the local jurisdiction. It should be noted, however, that if the final evaluations
(DPR523 A and B) are not completed for the Study Priority 1 properties within several
years, the City would need to reverify the information provided on DPR523A before a final
evaluation could be completed.
Option 1: Phase 2 (January. 15 to July 31, 1999)
The second part of the historic record, the Building, Structure and Object Record (DPR523B)
would be completed for all Study Priority 1 properties that were recommended as potentially
eligible on the October 15 List, and for which DPR523A forms were prepared in Phase 1.
The Building, Structure and Object Record includes the history of the property and the final
evaluation of its historical significance and period of significance. Preparing DPR523B will
bring the historic survey to completion for Study Priority 1 properties. Based on this
completed work, the consultant would make a fmal recommendation of which Study Priority
1 properties appear eligible for the National Register and/or for the Palo Alto Historic
Inventory.
Option 2
This option addresses both Study Priority 1 and Study Priority 2 properties, in order to
reduce uncertainty for property owners by identifying all properties that are historically
significant and eliminating from further consideration the remaining properties, as well as
completing the City’s historic survey project.
Opt. ion 2: Phase 1 (October 15, 1998 to January. 15. 1999)
The objective is to produce the consultant’s preliminary recommendation of eligibility for
NRHP and for the Historic Inventory for each property on Study Priority 1 and Study Priority
2, based on all three Criteria A, B and.C. There is such a large number of properties
(approximately 2,700) in Study Priority 2, the consultants have developed a special
methodology, in consultation with the State Office of Historic Preservation, to expedite the
archival research for these properties by using a specially developed methodology for the
Palo Alto survey. This methodology was worked out by the consultants with the State Office
of Historic Preservation to expedite the elimination of large numbers of properties with no
historic significance from the Study Priority 2 list. In Option 2, the list of potentially eligible
properties on both Study Priority 1 and 2 lists is provided in January 1999, with completion
of State forms and documentation and final evaluation to be completed in September 1999.
(See Attachment B for a more detailed explanation of this proposed special methodology.)
Since architectural merit (Criterion C) of Study Priority 1 properties was already assessed
for the preparation of the October 15 List, they will be assessed for poten.tial eligibility only
CMR:337:98 Page 6 of 15
on Criteria A and B in this Phase. The Study Priority 2 properties will be assessed for
potential eligibility on Criteria A, B and C.
The consultants would provide, by January 15, 1999: 1) a list of Study Priority 1 and 2
properties recommended for the National Register or the Palo Alto. Historic Inventory; 2) a
report describing the methodology used to assess eligibility; and 3) a table showing basic
data and the on-going research status of each property.
Option 2: Phase 2 (January 15 to September 30, 1999)
The objective of this Phase is to complete the standard historic survey documentation, both
the Primary Record (DPR523A) and the Building, Structure and Object Record (DPR523B),
for all Study Priority 1 and 2 properties that were recommended as potentially eligible on the
October 15 List and the January 15 List. Completing this documentation would result in a
final completion of the historic survey for all of the City’s pre-1948 properties. Based on this
completed work, the consultant would make a final recommendation of al! properties that
appear eligible for the National Register and!or for the Palo Alto Historic Inventory. This
phase of the work would be completed by September 30, 1999.
Comparison of Options 1 and 2
The table below compares Options 1 and 2.
CMR:337:98 Page 7 of 15
Disadvantages to
option/phase
selected
Total cost for
each phase
Total cost for
each option
Abbreviations
Criteria A and B
Criterion C
Form DPR523A
Form DPR523B
s:\plan\pladiv\cm r~cm rvwch2.wpd
Not applicable.
*$42,500 if Option 1 follows
*$48,500 if Option 2 follows
Theend product is Form DPR523A, but
only for Study Priority 1 properties.
Completion of the Primary Record does not.
provide any additional information
regarding eligibility of properties, so does
not contribute to reducing uncertainty for
Study Priority 1 and 2 property owners.
Even though these properties are in the
California Register of Historic Resources, if
the final evaluations of Forms DPR523 A
and B are not completed for the Study
Priority 1 properties within a "reasonable
period" the city would have to reverify
DPR523A before evaluation would be
completed.
Criteria A and B are not evaluated and no
final evaluation is prepared.
$99,000
Although the end product is completed
Form DPR523 A and B, it is only for Study
Pd~rity 1 properties.
Costs associated with completing
DPR523A separate from DPR523B make
this option less cost effective than Option
2.
Study Priority 2 includes approximately
1250 properties built before 1930. The
potentia! historic significance of these older
buildings remains unresolved and
uncertainty for the property owners
remains.
$239,200***
$38O,000***
The end product is only a listing of
recommended eligible Study Priority 1 and
2 properties. No forms are completed.
$86,300
This Option, Phases 1 and 2 is more
costly than Option 1, although the cost per
property surveyed is lower.
It is a more extensive project than Option 1
and requires the continued resources/
efforts of volunteers and staff for several
months longer (through September 30,
1999).
$284,500***
$419,300***
These criteria include association with historically significant events and people.
This criterion includes examination of architecture, design and construction of the property/structure.
This form includes property/structure description and photograph.
This form includes history of the property and evaluation of historic significance and period of significance.
All of the above lists or records produced are properties with the potential for National Register of Historic Places eligibility or potential local significance.
Criteria noted above are National Register of Historic Places criteria.
Total includes Final Report and $23,000 special contingency.
For both options, between August 15 and October 15, 1998, the emphasis is on providing as
much information as possible on Study Priority 1 properties’ potential eligibility for the
¯ National Register of Historic Places and for the Historic Inventory. This is a required task
whether either Option 1 or Option 2 is selected.
After October 15, and through July 31, 1999, Option 1 continues to focus on completing the
standard State forms and documentation and final evaluations for Study Priority 1 properties.
Option 2 focuses on reducing uncertainty about eligibility for both Study Priority 1 and Study
Priority 2 properties. It is important to note that both program options are designed with an
intermediate step, in which a list of recommended potentially eligible properties is provided
before the more time-consuming task of preparing and completing the State DPR523A and
B form. This approach would allow most property owners to know at an earlier date whether
or not their properties are being recommended for inclusion on the Historic Inventory.
Though the dates for completing the historic survey extend into mid-1999, the information
about which properties are likely to be subject to the Historic Preservation Ordinance is
available much earlier -- in Option 1 by October 15, 1998, only for Study Priority 1
properties, and in Option 2 by January 15, 1999, for both Study Priority 1 and 2 properties.
Option 1 means that either Priority 2 properties are not further considered or are done as
volunteer and City resources allow over a longer period of time.
Role of Volunteers in the Inventory. Project
Over 100 volunteers have been trained and have contributed time to the Inventory work
effort. Volunteer research and training is continuing even through the summer, with 53
trained volunteers working on research assignments and .additional training sessions being
conducted for new volunteers. In response to Council direction to maximize the volunteer
efforts to speed completion of the historic survey, staff is recommending the hiring of
additional temporary workers. Two part-time temporary workers would collect information
in the Building Department files that is difficult for volunteers to access and research, and
two part-time trained persons would do library research and keep the historic files at the
Main Library open and available to the volunteers at all times that the library is open. The
BAO attached to this report includes $18,000 for this additional temporary, part-time
staffing.
In both Options 1 and 2, there is a continuing role for volunteers, but the cost estimates
.include a $23,000 contingency in the event that tasks assigned to volunteers are not
completed. That contingency guarantees completion of the scope of work if there were to
be an unlikely diminution of volunteer effort in the coming months.
RESOURCE IMPACTS
The proposed funding for Option 1 (completing the historic survey only for Priority 1
properties) is $380,000. The proposed funding for Option 2 (completing the historic survey
for all properties included in the survey) is $419,300. The funding for the Historic Inventory
CMR:337:98 Page 11 of 15
in the initial Dames & Moore contract, August 1997 through August 1998, has amounted to
approximately $180,000. Combined with the extended work under the proposed contract
amendment, Option.1 would result in a total project cost of $560,000, and Option 2 in a total
project cost of $599,300. This amounts to an average cost of $85 to $90 per property
addressed in the survey of the City’s approximately 6,600 buildings constructed prior to
1948. Because the procedure followed in Option 2 allows for a more efficient use of
resources, it is more cost effective. Only Option 2 provides a completed survey of all
historically-significant properties and for a cost that is only slightly more than the cost of
evaluating only Study Priority 1 properties in Option 1. Option 1 leaves the historic survey
incomplete, so the final product is not of comparable value to that of a completed survey.
Therefore, staffwould not recommend pursuing Option 1 to its completion. If the Council
desires to limit the remainder of the survey to Priority 1 properties, staff would recommend
Option 1, ending after Phase 1.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
This proposal responds to previous Council direction regarding the continued development
of the update of the Historic Inventory.
TIMELINE
The staff-recommended Option 2 could be completed on the following timeline:
October 15, 1998
October 19-23
January 15, 1999
January 18-22
January 25
February 4
February 8
February 15
March 1
March 31
Receive from consultants recommended Priority 1 properties
based on Criterion C.
Inform Priority 1 property owners of recommended eligibility
for Historic Inventory.
Receive from consultants recommended Priority 2 properties
based on Criteria A, B and C.
Inform Priority 2 property owners of recommended eligibility
for Historic Inventory.
Last date for mailing public hearing notices.
City Council packet distribution.
First public hearing on permanent Historic Ordinance.
Last date for adoption of permanent Historic Ordinance by City
Council.
Second reading of the Ordinance.
Permanent Historic Ordinance goes into effect.
Council requested information on a schedule which allows the Interim Ordinance to sunset
on December 31, 1998. Such a schedule, shown below, provides only three weeks between
publication of the preliminary recommended list of several hundred properties for inclusion
on the Historic Inventory and the City Council public hearing on the permanent Historic
Ordinance. While it appears that this is enough time to meet minimal legal public noticing
CMR:337:98 Page 12 of 15
requirements, it does not provide adequate time for Council, the HRB, property owners and
the general public to review the properties being recommended before considering the
Ordinance that will apply to these properties.
October 15, 1998
October 19-23
October 29
November 5
November 9
November 16
December 1
December 31
Received from consultants recommended Priority 1 properties
based on Criterion C.
Notices sent to owners of Priority 1 properties identified as
eligible based on Criterion C.
Last date for mailing public hearing notices.
City Council packet distribution
First public hearing on revised permanent Historic Ordinance
Last date for adoption of permanent Historic Ordinance by City
Council
Second reading of the Ordinance
Permanent Historic Ordinance goes into effect
This schedule does not allow adequate time for the Council to communicate with citizens
whose properties are likely to be subject to the permanent Historic Ordinance, nor for
property owners to respond to the information presented. The schedule does not allow time
for the HRB to consider and recommend Landmark or Significant Historic Resource status
for each property. For these reasons, staff recommends the Council-approved date of
March 31, 1999 for the permanent Historic Ordinance to go into effect, not December 31,
1998.
With both Options~ preliminary recommendations of Study Priority 1 properties to be
included in the Historic Inventory on the basis of architecture would be provided by October
15, 1998. If Option 2 is selected, the preliminary recommendations for both Study Priority
1 and 2 properties on the basis of all three Criteria would be provided by January 15, 1999.
In both Options, public hearings and action on the permanent Historic Ordinance could occur
in January and February 1999, with the permanent Ordinance to take effect on March 31,
1999.
In both Options, the formal nomination of individual properties to the Historic Inventory
would occur after the final evaluations have been prepared for the properties and the DPR523
forms completed: after July 31, 1999, in the case of Option 1 and after September 30, 1999,
in the case of Option 2.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The requested approvals for funding and consultant scope of work amendments do not
represent projects under the California Environmental Quality Act.
CMR:337:98 Page 13 of 15
ATTACHMENTS
A:Budget Amendment Ordinance
B:Consultant status report, "Background and Future Work for the Historic Inventory
Project"
C:Sample of state form DPR523A and B
D:Dames & Moore Revised Scope of Work, June 8-August 31, 1998
PREPARED BY:Virginia Warheit, Senior Planner
Eric Riel, Chief Planning Official
DEPARTMENT HEAD REVIEW:
ANNE CRONIN MOORE
Interim Director of Planning and
Community Environment
PROJECT COORDINATOR:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
EMIL" HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
Architectural Review Board
Historic Resources Board
Planning Commission
Palo Alto/Stanford Heritage
Palo Alto Historical Association
Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce
Palo Alto Board of Realtors
Barton Park Association
College Terrace Residents Association
CMR:337:98 Page 14 of 15
Crescent Park Neighborhood Association
Community Center Neighbors Association
Downtown North Neighborhood Association
Midtown Residents Association
Palo Verde Neighborhood Association
Ramona Homeowners Association
University Park Association
University South Neighborhoods Group
Ventura Neighborhood Association
Ventura Neighborhood Association
Ventura Neighborhood Association
John Paul Hanna
Palo Alto Homeowners Association
CMR:337:98 Page 15 of 15
Attachment A
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO
AMENDING THE BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 1998-99 TO
PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION OF $437,400 FOR AN
INTERIM HISTORIC INVENTORY CONSULTANT
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of Article
III of the Charter of the City of Palo Alto, the Council on June
22, 1998 did adopt a budget for fiscal year 1998-99; and
WHEREAS, on July 13,1998, Council extended the Interim Historic
Ordinance and Regulations through March 31, 1999; and
WHEREAS, a historic inventory needs to be completed to provide
an assessment of the implications of adopting a permanent historic
regulation; and
WHEREAS, the consulting firm of Dames & Moore was retained to
conduct the inventory at a cost of up to $437,400 depending on which
option is approved by City Council; and
WHEREAS, the funds will be added to the City Manager’s
Contingency Account from which transfers will be made to the
Planning Department as needed by a Budget Change Request, with
approval of the City Manager, as specified in Section 2.28.060 of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and any unused portions will be
returned to the Budget Stabilization Reserve at year-end; and
WHEREAS, City Council authorization is needed to amend the
1998-99 budget as hereinafter set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the .City of Palo Alto does
ORDAIN as follows:
SECTION i. The sum of Four Hundred Thirty-Seven Thousand Four
Hundred Dollars ($437,400) is hereby appropriated to the City
Manager’s Contingency Account, and the Budget.Stabilization Reserve
is correspondingly reduced.
SECTION 2. This transaction will reduce the
Stabilization Reserve from $16,090,208 to $15,652,808.
Budget
SECTION 3. As specified in Section 2.28.080(a) of the Palo
Alto Municipal Code, a two-thirds vote of the City Council is
required to adopt this ordinance.
SECTION 4. The Council of the City of Palo Alto hereby finds
that approval of additional appropriations is not a project under
the California Environmental Quality Act and, therefore, no
environmental impact assessment is necessary.
SECTION 5. As provided in Section 2.04.350 of the Palo Alto
Municipal Code, this ordinance shall become effective upon adoption.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTENTIONS:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:APPROVED:
City Clerk Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:City Manager
Senior Asst. City Attorney Director of
Services
Administrative
Interim Director of Planning
and Community Environment
Attachment B
BACKGROUND AND FUTURE WORK
FOR
HISTORIC INVENTORY PROJECT
Contract No. C8099994
prepared for
The City of Palo Alto
prepared by
Dames & Moore
221 Main Street, Suite 600
San Francisco, CA 94105
29 July 1998
BACKGROUND ON THE SURVEY PROCESS DURING THE PASTYEAR ......1
General Survey Information ................. .........................1
Assessing Significance in the Palo Alto Survey ..........................3
FUTURE DIRECTION IN THE SURVEY PROCESS ..........................6
List of Recommended Properties in Study Priority 1 .......................6
DATES ....................................................7
DELIVERABLES ............................................7
COST ......................................................8
TASKS .....................................................8
Option l/Phase 1 ..................................................11
DATES ............, ......................................11
DELIVERABLES ...........................................11
COST .....................................................11
TASKS ....................................................11
ISSUES TO CONSIDER WITH THIS OPTION ...................12
Option l/Phase 2 ..................................................14
DATES ...................................................14
DELIVERABLES . .................................... ......14
COST .....................................................14
TASKS .....................................................14
ISSUES TO CONSIDER WITH THIS OPTION ...................16
Option 2/Phase 1 ..................................................17
DATES . ..................................................18
DELIVERABLES ...........................................19
COST .....................................................19
TASKS ..................................~ ..................20
ISSUES TO CONSIDER WITH THIS OPTION ...................21
Option 2]Phase 2 22
DATES ...................................................22
DELIVERABLES ...........................................22
COST ......... ............................................22
TASKS ....................................................22
ISSUES TO CONSIDER WITH THIS OPTION ...................23
APPENDIX A:Budget Table for Option 1
Budget Table for Option 2
APPENDIX B:List of Task Items Completed on Project to Date
Dames & Moore has been asked to prepare an outline of work that could be completed on
Study Priority 1 properties for submittal to the City on 15 October 1998. The purpose of
this request is to provide the City Council with information on the number of properties
that Dames & Moore will recommend as having: 1) National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) significance and 2) local significance. The City Council requires this
information as part of their deliberation process in preparing a new Historic Preservation
Ordinance. A budget for the differenct options is included as Appendix A.
The following is a summary of the process and work done on the survey project to date.
An list of tasks accomplished and work done is attached as Appendix B.
BACKGROUND ON THE SURVEY PROCESS DURING THE PAST YEAR
The Intensive Survey of the approximately 6,600 pre-1948 properties in Palo Alto and
assessing their significance is a sequential and cumulative process. The process involves
a series of steps that provide a cumulative body of information that allows us to assess
properties for their area and level of significance and integrity. The steps or tasks that
have been taking place over the last year are described below.
General Survey Information
In the Palo Alto Survey several steps have been taken that. are always a part of this type of
project. Generally, these steps have involved:
windshield survey involved driving the entire city and making notes on all 6,600
properties;
field research recording information about property (as it looks today) on a
field form and taking a photograph;
Page 1
Status of Historic Survey Project
revised 07-29-98
archival research gathering information from a variety of sources to provide
information on the property’s physical description(past and
present) and history;
historic contexts prepared to provide a basis for comparing the property to
similar ones or understanding its importance within a larger
historical framework;
review reviewing all of this information about a property;
evaluation determining significance for the property; and
DPR523 record recording the evaluation in a written format that provides a
summary, of all of the steps that were taken in the survey
process. The standardized format that is used in the state of
California is the California State Historic Properties Record
(DPR523).
Completing one step of the process often provides you with information that will direct
the nature of other steps in the process. And it is not uncommon with complex properties
or in large projects to revisit steps of the process. (An example would to go back and
look at a property because the archival research let you know that the property was once
used for a different purpose and you want to see if evidence of that remains. Or to go
back and look at a property that was not obviously significant now that you have more
information about it and the entire area.) The culmination of the process is the evaluation
of property’s significance and integrity as related to NRI-IP criteria.
A property is evaluated individually (for example does it look the same, is it in the same
location, is it used for the same purpose, etc.) and in context or comparison with other
properties. This means that an evaluation is not done in abstract. In other words, it is
Page 2
Status of Historic Survey Project
revised 07-29-98
necessary to understand the setting (in this case Palo Alto) within which the property
exists.
The process is generally followed on all NRHP evaluations. However, surveys of groups
of properties require a specific understanding of the historic resources and a plan or
methodology for how to go about and finish the process. So an additional step that has
been ongoing throughout the Intensive Survey is the development of the survey
methodology. This plan is developed in relationship to the scale of the project (total
number of properties), budget and resources available, goals and priorities, etc. The
California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) is the state agency with review authority
for NRHP evaluations. Dames & Moore has been consulting with the OHP to develop a
professionally acceptable methodology for the survey and evaluation ofPalo Alto’s
historic resources. This methodology will allow Palo Alto to continue the survey process
in the future (as properties reach threshold for inclusion in NRHP) in an efficient and
acceptable way.
Assessing Significance in the Palo Alto Survey
Over the past year, Dames & Moore has been assessing the significance of 6,600 pre-
1948 properties for NRHP eligibility and local historic significance. The NRHP has
established standards and methodology for determining if properties are eligible.
However, there are properties in Palo Alto that will not meet the NRHP standards but that
will be important or "locally significant" to the City. We will be identifying these
"locally significant" properties.
Local Significance. At the beginning of this project, the scope of work stipulated that
Dames & Moore would be determining NRHP eligibility for a portion of the 6,600
properties. However, over that past year the project has evolved to address issues that
were not always evident at the beginning of the contract. One of these to include the
identification of locally significant properties. The community has already identified
Page 3
Status of Historic Survey Project
revised 07-29-98
locally significant properties on the existing Historic Inventory, and so we will be adding
to the list of locally significant properties based on this existing standard. (The existing
Historic Preservation Ordinance and the drat~ of the proposed Historic Preservation
Ordinance include definitions for locally significant properties.)
Establishing Study Priorities. The windshield or initial survey resulted in the
classification of the pre-1948 properties into "Study Priorities". Basic assessments were
made about properties’ potential significance under NRHP Criterion C for
Design/Construction:
Study Priority I Properties that possessed visual integrity and that appeared most
likely to have significance under NRHP Criterion C
(Design/Construction) were placed in Study Priority 1.
Study Priority 2 Properties that possessed visual integrity but that appeared less likely
or unlikely to have significance under NRHP Criterion C were
placed in Study Priority 2.
The Study Priorities organized the 6,600 properties so that we could efficiently study the
historic resources of Palo Alto and decide how t0proceed in assessing the integrity and
significance of individual properties.
Integrity. In grouping properties by their visual character, we were grouping them by the
most obvious aspect - their essential physical features. The understanding of their
"essential physical features", that is what is essential about different types and styles of
buildings, is part of the body of knowledge in architectural history. An experience
architectural historian can quickly determine a property’s visual character. However
determining the integrity of a property is more time consuming because integrity is a
more complex concept as it relates to the eligibility of properties for inclusion on the
NRHP. The term has specific and accepted meaning as related to the NRHP. Integrity is
based on significance - why, where, and when a property is important. And it is only
Page 4
Status of Historic Survey Project
revised 07-29-98
atter significance has been fully established that the complete integrity of a property can
be determined.
Significance. The NRI-IP Criteria A (Events), B (Persons), and C (Design/Construction)
are the main areas of significance recognized by the NRHP for the built environment.
Evaluating buildings for significance under Criterion C (Design/Construction) is inmany
ways the easiest and most obvious aspect. Determining the significance of properties for
Criteria A and B is not as obvious as looking at a property and determining that it has all
of the key characteristics of a Queen Anne style house, for example. Supporting research
(field research, property specific archival research, and historic contexts ) is required.
This information allows us to determine if a building that has visual integrity also is
important in relationship to Events or Persons and hence eligible for the NRHP under
Criteria A or B.
Page 5
Status of Historic Survey Project
revised 07-29-98
FUTURE DIRECTION OF THE SURVEY PROCESS
I. 1 September through 15 October 1998
Between 1 September and 15 October 1998, Dames & Moor~ will assess potential
eligibility of Study Priority 1 properties and then prepare a list of Study Priority 1
properties recommended for potential NRHP eligibility and local significance under
Design/Construction significance. This area of Design/Construction significance
corresponds with the NRHP’s Criterion C and the categories in the draft Staff Report for
architectural significance.
In order to make an assessment for local significance the definitions for this term must be
refined. This will be the responsibility of the City, although Dames & Moore will provide
input and consultation. Dames & Moore is currently working with the California Office
of Historic Preservation (OHP) to provide a memo that outlines the methodology for the
Intensive Survey in Palo Alto. In meetings and conversations with the OHP, they have
.pointed out the need to refine the local significance definition.
The Design/Construction significance criterion is only one of the criterion under which
Dames & Moore will ultimately evaluate the significance of properties if the survey is
completed. The other two are Events (NRHP’s Criterion A) and Persons (NRHP’s
Criterion B). In Study Priority 1, the majority of the properties will be significant under
Design/Construction. In addition, these properties may also be significant under Events
and/or Persons, and the research that is currently being conducted will provide the
information necessary to make the evaluation under these two criteria. However, by
providing a list of potential eligibility under Design/Construction (Criterion C), we will
be able to provide the City Council with the most inclusive list of Study Priority 1
properties that may be eligible.
This list of potentially eligible Study Priority 1 properties will: i) identify by address the
specific properties that are important for design, construction, and architectural reasons;
and 2) provide the City Council as they are reviewing and adopting the new permanent
Page 6
15 October 1998
revised 07-29-98
Historic Ordinance with the information on the number of Study Priority 1 properties in
aggregate that can be expected in the new Historic Inventory.
This list of potentially eligible properties will not provide completed NRHP evaluations
for Study Priority 1. The completed evaluations would require the completion of historic
contexts, research on Persons and Events, evaluation of the properties’ significance under
all NRHP criteria (A, B, and C [Criterion D usually applies the archaeology and isnot a
part of this particular project]), and completion of the California State Historic Resources
record (DPR523 record).
DATES: 1 September through 15 October 1998
DELIVERABLES
1) List of Study Priority 1 properties.
List of Study Priority 1 Properties that are potentially eligible for
Design/Construction significance (NRHP Criterion C) under two areas of
eligibility: 1) NRHP eligibility and 2) local significance. The information
will be presented in a table that will include the address, assessor’s parcel
number (APN), date of construction, and recommendation area (either
potential NRHP eligibility or potential local significance). In hard copy and
on diskette in WordPerfect 6.1
2)Report
A brief report that describes how we assessed the potential eligibility of the
Study Priority 1 properties, methodology used to arrive the assessment, and
definitions of NRHP eligibility and local significance. In hard copy and on
diskette in WordPerfect 6.1
Page 7
15 October 1998
revised 07-29-98
3) Study Priority 1 Status Table.
Also to accompany this submittal will be a separate table of all Study
Priority 1 properties that summarizes the tasks undertaken and products
completed related to the survey process so that the City Council can easily
see the status of the work related to Study Priority I properties. This table
would also be valuable as a summary of information (facts) about these
approximately 600 properties. (Examples of the categories of information
that will be shown in this table include: property address; APN; date of
construction; architect/builder/owner; field research status; photograph
status; archival research status; property file folder, etc.) In hard copy and
on diskette in WordPerfect 6.1.
COST $ 43,542.43 (with Option 1)
$ 49,490.43 (with Option 2)
TASKS (under Option 1)
CONSULTANT (Under Option 1)
Denise Bradley (Project Manager and Historian)
¯Project Management.
°Hire second research assistant.
°Continue coordination of volunteer efforts and coordinate work of volunteer
preparing historic contexts related to cityscapes issues.
¯Prepare table with list of study priority 1 properties to show status and key
information for review by M. Corbett;
°Check property file folders for all study Priority 1 properties (for photo,
field form, Sanborn map, and BODS info);
°Review and Prepare final deliverables for 15 October.
Page 8
15 October 1998
revised 07-29-98
Michael Corbett (Architectural Historian)
¯ Direct Work of 2 research assistants and get them started on writing
descriptions for Study Priority 1 properties (for use in Option 1, Phase 1).
¯Review all Study Priority 1 properties for assessment of potential NR_HP
and local significance (1-30 September) on Criterion C.
o Prepare assessment all Study Priority 1 properties for assessment of
potential NRHP and local significance on Criterion C.
¯Prepare, report.
Jason Chafin (Research Assistant)
¯Assist M. Corbel, as required.
¯Begin writing descriptions for Study Priority 1 Properties (for use in Option
1, Phase 1).
Research Assistant (to be hired)
°Assist M. Corbett, as required.
°Begin writing descriptions for Study Priority 1 Properties (for use in Option
1, Phase 1).
Brian Vahey (Word Processor)
¯Input tables for 15 October.
VOLUNTEERS (under Option 1)
For Study Priority 1 properties have all BODS information completed and
filed in property files by 1 September 1998. This must be completed for,the
Consultant to prepare deliverables for 15 October.
For Study Priority 1 properties have all Sanborn maps xeroxed and filed in
property files by 1 September 1998. This must be completed for the
~repare deliverables for 15 October.
Page 9
15 October 1998
revised 07-29-98
Continue archival research on Study Priority 1 properties (to be completed
by 31 December 1998).
Continue on work related to historic contexts.
TASKS (under Option 2)
CONSULTANT (under Option 2)
Same as in Option 1 with the following additions:
Jason Chafin (Research Assistan0
¯Begin writing descriptions and histories for Study Priority 1
Properties (for use in Option 2, Phase 2).
Research Assistant (to be hired)
¯Begin writing descriptions and histories for Study Priority 1
Properties (for use in Option 2, Phase 2).
Elizabeth Leubben (Photo Assistant)
Take photographs of Study Priority 2 properties (to have ready for
M.Corbett to review beginning 16 October for use in Option 2, Phase
1).
VOLUNTEERS (under Option 2)
Same as in Option 1.
Page 10
15 October J998
revised 07-29-98
OPTIONS
Dames & Moore was also been asked to determine what further information and
refinement on Study Priority 1 properties could be reached following the submittal on 15
October 1998 by 15 January 1999. The following provides an outline of two options or
approaches to work that could be completed by that date and describes the deliverable
that would be provided to the City on 15 January 1999.
Option 1, Phase 1
Provide Primary Record (DPR523A) for all Study Priority 1 properties that were
recommended for eligibility on 15 the October list.
DATES: 16 October 1998 through 15 January 1999
DELIVERABLES
Primary Records (DPR523A)
Primary Records (DPR523A) for all Study Priority 1 properties identified as
having potential NRHP eligibility and potential local significance under
Criterion C.
COSTS:$ 99,028.31
TASKS
CONSULTANT
Denise Bradley (Project Manager and Historian)
o Project Management.
¯Continue coordination of volunteer efforts.
.Manage production of Primary Records (DPR523A): coordinate all efforts,
fill out record (other than descriptions), edit and proof record, assemble
final record.
Page 11
Option 1/Phase 1
revised 07-29-98
Michael Corbett (Architectural Historian)
Review and edit descriptions prepared by 2 research assistants.
Jason Chafin (Research Assistant)
¯Continue writing descriptions for Study Priority 1 Properties.
¯Help with assembly of Primary Records.
Research Assistant (to be hired)
°Continue writing descriptions for Study Priority 1 Properties.
¯Help with assembly of Primary Records.
Brian Vahey (Word Processor)
¯Input descriptions for Primary Record on WordPerfect 6.1.
¯Input Primary Record on WordPerfect 6.1.
VOLUNTEERS
¯ Continue archival research on Study Priority 1 properties (must be
completed by 31 December 1998 for Consultants to use in Option 1,
Phase 2).
ISSUES TO CONSIDER WITH THIS OPTION
This option provides a photo and description of properties for City Council to
have as they work on Hist. Ordinance.
Because the Primary Record (DPR523A) is the basic element of the recordation
process, these can be submitted to OHP and become part of California Register of
Historic Resources (CRHR).
The City will have_something completed for all of the potentially eligible Study
Priority 1 properties.
The City will have the same level of information/recordation for all properties in
Study Priority 1.
Page 12
Option l/Phase 1
revised 07-29-98
Even though these properties will be listed in California Register of Historic
Resources (CRHR) by submission of DPR523A, if the City doesn’t complete
evaluations (and complete DPR523A and B) for Study Priority 1 within
"reasonable period" the City would need to update DPR523A before the
evaluation could be completed.
The listing in the CRHR would be given the CRHR status code of"7" for
"undetermined" or "not evaluated."
Puts all efforts into providing this information but doesn’t get the project any
further along in either the completed evaluations for Study Priority 1 or
summary, for Study Priority 2 properties (as.is provided in 15 October list).~
So that some uncertainty on numbers of Properties in Study Priority 2 that may
eventually be recommended for Historic Inventory. Largest portion of this group is
pre-WWII Study Priority 2 properties (1250 properties for ca. 1890-1930 and 800
properties for ca. 1931-1944).
Page 13
Option 1/Phase 1
revised 07-29-98
Option 1, Phase 2
Complete Evaluations on Study Priority 1 Properties and Prepare completed State
Historic Resources Record (Primary Record DPR523A and Building, Structure, Object
Record DPR53B)
DATES:16 January through 31 July 1999 (final evaluations and DPR523B)
1 August through mid-October 1999 (final report, information
management/archival recommendations, and project close-out)
DELIVERABLES
Final evaluations of all Study Priority 1 properties on State Historic
Resources Records (DPR523 A and B).
Final Report.
Information Management and Archival Recommendations Memo.
COSTS $ 239,180.38 (includes $23,000.00 contingency)
TASKS
CONSULTANT
Denise Bradley (Project Manager and Historian)
¯Project Management.
°Continue coordination of volunteer efforts.
°Manage production of Building, Structure, and Object Records (DPR523B):
coordinate all efforts, fill out record (), edit and proof record, assemble final
record.
Page 14
Option 1/Phase 2
revised 07-29-98
Review and edit historic contexts related to landscape issues.
Prepare fmal report.
Coordinate information management and archival recommendations;
prepare memo.
Project close-out.
Michael Corbett (Architectural Historian)
¯Review and edit histories prepared by 2 research assistants.
¯Prepare final evaluations for Study Priority 1 properties.
¯Review and edit historic contexts.
¯Final report.
Jason Chafin (Research Assistan0
¯Write histories for Study Priority 1 Properties.
¯Help with assembly of Building, Structure, Object Records
(DPR523B).
Research Assistant (to be hired)
¯Write histories for Study Priority 1 Properties.
¯Help with assembly of Building, Structure, Object.Records
(DPR523B).
Brian Vahey (Word Processor)
¯Input histories and evaluations for Building, Structure, Object
Record on WordPerfect 6.1.
¯Input Building, Structure, Object Record (DPR523B) on
WordPerfect 6.1.
VOLUNTEERS
Complete historic contexts.
Page 15
Option l/Phase 2
revised 07-29-98
ISSUES TO CONSIDER WITH THIS OPTION
City will have completed evaluation process for Study Priority 1 properties.
Less efficient use of project resources because the Primary Record (DPR523A) and
Building, Structure, Object Record (DPR523B) were prepared separately.
No additional information is prepared concerning Study Priority 2 properties.
Some uncertainty remains on the numbers of properties in Study Priority 2 that
may eventually be recommended for the Historic Inventory. The largest portion of
this group are pre-WWII Study Priority 2 properties (1250 properties for ca. 1890-
1930 and 800 properties for ca. 1931-1944).
Page 16
Option l/Phase 2
revised 07-29-98
OPTION 2
Option 2/Phase 1
Provide a list of potentially eligible properties for the Study Priority 2 properties
and refine Study Priority 1 list (based on information on Criteria A and B)
Between 16 October 1998 and 15 January 1999, Dames & Moore will assess potential
eligibility of Study Priority 2 properties and then prepare a list of recommendations for
potential NRHP eligibility and potential local significance for all Study Priority 2
properties.
During the Initial Survey properties that possessed visual integrity but .that appeared
unlikely to have significance under NRHP Criterion C (Design/Construction) were placed
in Study Priority 2. So for Study Priority 2 properties, assessment of the significance for
NRHP eligibility under Criterion A (Events) and B (Persons) as well as local significance
needs to be determined.
This list of.potentially eligible properties in Study Priority 2 will:
1)identify by address the specific properties that are important for Events (Criterion
A), Persons (Criterion B), and Design/Construction (Criterion C); and
2)provide the City Council, as they are reviewing and adopting the new permanent
Historic Ordinance, with the information on the number of Study Priority 2
properties in aggregate that can be expected in the new Historic Inventory.
This list of potentially eligible properties will not provide completed NRHP evaluations
for Study Priority 2. This will require the completion of historic contexts, research on
Persons and Events, evaluation of the properties’ significance under all NRHP criteria (A,
B, and C), and completion of the Califomia State Historic Resources record (DPR523
record).
Page 17
Option 2/Phase 2
revised 07-29-98
¯ We will also update the information on Study Priorities 1 from the 15 October list, if
more information has been found. This information would relate to the significance of
Study Priority 1 properties under Criteria A (Persons) and B (Events). The Study Priority
1 properties identified as potentially eligible under these criteria will most likely have
already been identified as potentially eligible for Design/Construction in the 15 October
list, This additional information will provide a more complete assessment of Study
Priority 1 significant properties.
We will be able to prepare these lists that provide for evaluations related to Criteria A and
B in a relatively quick timeframe because of discussions we had with the California
Office of Historic Preservation this summer. This summer at the direction of the City ’
Council, Dames & Moore reviewed the Study Priority 2 properties in order to refine the
list and to determine how to evaluated these properties efficiently. As part of this, we
counted the properties by construction dates, expecting to find that the majority of
properties on the Study Priority 2 list were built after World War II (1945-1947).
However, we found that there were only about 650 properties in this period (1945-1947);
800 properties were built between 1931-1944; and 1250 properties were built between
1890-1930. We also met with the OHP to discuss how we could "streamline" the
evaluation process since Palo Alto had so many properties to evaluate. We explained to
the OHP that without streamlining the evaluation process Palo Alto would be unable to
complete its survey process in a timely manner. The OHP agreed to the methods we
outlined for streamlining the process, and we are in the process of preparing amemo for
OHP’s review.
DATES: 16 October 1998 through 15 January 1999
Page 18
Option 2/Phase 2
revised 07-29-98
DELIVERABLES
Study Priority 1
1)Updated list of Study Priority 1 properties to include, in addition to potential
eligibility under Criterion C (Design/Construction), potential eligibility under
Criteria A (Events) and B (Persons). In hard copy and WordPerfect 6. L
2)The information will be presented in a table that will include the address,
assessor’s parcel number (APN), date of construction, and recommendation area
(either potential NRHP eligibility or potential local significance). In hard copy and
WordPerfect 6.1.
Study Priority 2
1)A list of Study Priority 2 properties that are potentially eligible for: NRHP under
NRA-IP Criteria A (Events) and B (Persons); and locally under
Design/Construction significance. In hard copy and WordPerfect 6.1.
2)The information will be presented in a table that will include the address,
assessor’s parcel number (APN), date of construction, and recommendation area
(either potential NRHP eligibility or potential local significance). In hard copy and
WordPerfect 6.1.
3)A report that describes how we made the assessment of potential eligibility of the
Study Priority 2 properties, methodology used to arrivethe assessment, and
definitions of NRHP eligibility and local significance will also be submitted. In
hard copy and WordPerfect 6.1.
COSTS $ 86,331.23
Page 19
Option 2/Phase 2
revised 07-29-98
TASKS
CONSULTANT
Denise Bradley (Project Manager and Historian)
¯Project Management.
o Continue coordination of volunteer efforts,
¯Review and Prepare final deliverables for 15 January.
Michael Corbett (Architectural Historian)
¯Direct work of 2 research assistants.
¯Review all Study Priority 2 properties for assessment of potential NRHP
and local significance.
°Prepare assessment all Study Priority 2 properties for assessment of
potential NRHP and local significance.
°Refine list of Study Priority 1 properties (15 October), if new information
exists from volunteers.
o Prepare report.
Jason Chafin (Research Assistant)
¯Continue writing descriptions and histories for Study Priority 1 Properties.
Research Assistant (to be hired)
¯Continue writing descriptions and histories for Study Priority 1 Properties.
Brian Vahey (Word Processor)
°Input information on Study Priority 1 and 2 properties into tabular format
on WordPerfect 6.1.
Page 20
Option 2/Phase 2
revised 07-29-98
VOLUNTEERS
Continue archival research on Study Priority 1 properties(must be
completed by 31 December 1998 for Consultants to use in Option 1, Phase
2).
Continue work on historic contexts.
ISSUES TO CONSIDER WITH THIS OPTION
City now knows the numbers of properties for both Study Priority 1 and 2 that
will be recommended for the Historic Inventory.
City now knows the preliminary evaluation or recommendation for both Study
Priority 1 and 2. City can notify property owners, as appropriate.
No evaluations are complete at this point in the project.
No DPR523 records have been prepared, although team members (consultant and
volunteers) will have been working tasks that will be used in preparing DPR523
records (i.e. the consultant will have been writing descriptions and histories for
Study Priority 1 properties - two of the three important pieces of the completed
record - the evaluation being the third piece.)
Page 21
Option 2/Phase 2
rewised 07-29-98
Option 2, Phase 2
Complete.Evaluations on all recommended properties (in Study Priority 1 and 2 lists) and
Prepare completed State Historic Resources Record (Primary Record DPR523A and
Building, Structure, Object Record DPR523B)
DATES:16 January through 30 September 1999 (final evaluations and DPR523A
and B)
1 October through mid-December 1999 (final report, information
management/archival recommendations, and project close-out)
DELIVERABLES
COSTS:$ 284,508.32 (includes $23,000.00 contingency)
TASKS
CONSULTANT
Denise Bradley (Project Manager and Historian)
¯Project Management.
.Continue coordination of volunteer efforts.
¯Manage production of Building, Structure, and Object Records (DPR523B):
coordinate all efforts, fill out record, edit and proof record, assemble final
record.
¯Review and edit historic contexts related to landscape issues.
°Prepare. final report.
°Coordinate information management and archival recommendations;
prepare memo.
°Project close-out.
Page 22
Option 2/Phase 2
revised 07-29-98
Michael Corbett (Architectural Historian)
¯Review and edit histories prepared by 2 research assistants.
¯Prepare final evaluations for all properties.
¯Review and edit historic contexts.
¯Final report.
Jason Chafin (Research Assistant)
°Write histories for Study Priority 1 Properties.
¯Write descriptions and histories for Study Priority 2 Properties
°Help with assembly of Building, Structure, Object Records (DPR523B).
Research Assistant (to be hired)
¯Write histories for Study Priority 1 Properties.
¯Write descriptions and histories for Study Priority 2 Properties
o Help with assembly of Building, Structure, Object Records (DPR523B).
Brian Vahey (Word Processor)
¯Input histories and evaluations for Building, Structure, Object Record on
WordPerfect 6.1.
¯Input Building, Structure, Object Record (DPR523B) on WordPerfect 6.1.
VOLUNTEERS
°Complete historic contexts.
ISSUES TO CONSIDER WITH THIS OPTION
Evaluation process is complete for all pre-1948 properties that were
identified onthe Study Priority 1 and 2 lists.
Page 23
Option 2/Phase 2
revised 07-29-98
APPENDIX A:Budget Table for Option 1
Budget Table for Option 2
° °I
APPENDIX B"List of Task Items Completed on Project to Date
Summary and Status of Work for Historic Inventory Project
17 July 1998
Task 1
Monthly summary memo and invoices prepared:
¯19 September 1997 (for 16 August through 12 September 1997)
.15 October 1997 (for 13 September through 10 October 1997)
¯14 November 1997 (for 11 October through 7 November 1997)
°10 December 1997 (for 8 November through 5 December 1997)
°9 January 1998 (for 6 December 1997 through 2 January 1998)
o 9 February 1998 (for 3 January through 30 January 1998)
7 March 1998 (for 31 January through 27 February 1998)
3 April 1998 (for 28 February through 27 March 1998)
1 May 1998 (for 28 March through 24 April 1998)
29 May 1998 (for 25 April through 22 May 1998)
from 18 August 1997 through
26 June 1998 (for 23 May through 19 June 1998)
Task 2 ~ ~
Maps:Consulted with Gloria Humble on preparation of maps for Initial Windshield Survey;
maps prepared for entire city that color-coded properties into: 1) properties on existing
Historic Inventory; 2) pre-1948 properties; 3) post-1947 properties; and 4) properties of
unknown construction date/status.
Initial Survey
Initial/Windshield Survey of approximately 6,600 pre-J 948 properties during weeks of
September 7-11, SePtember 14-19, September 21-25, September 28-October 2, October
5-9, October 12-16, January 5-9, February 17-21, February 24-28, and March 3-6)
¯field checked all properties;
¯noted information on construction date, style, and integrity; and
°prepared an initial prioritizing of historic properties for further research.
Survey Background Report
Prepared "Survey Background Report" that summarized initial findings of windshield
survey. Submitted on 31 October 1997.
Study Priority Lists
Prepared address list for Study Priorities. This has been revised and updated through
project. (Memos to Virginia Warheit [21 January, 26 January, 2 February, 2 April 1998 )
Public Meetings
Attended public meetings related to survey and ordinance (City Council meetings [dates]
and Public Workshops [dates]).
Task 3
did not involve survey
Task 4
Volunteer Effort
Met with Volunteer Coordinators throughout project (in person and over phone)
2
Initial Volunteer Meeting (9 October 1997)
Developed Volunteer Tasks, prepared Volunteer Instructions, conducted volunteer
training, and consulted with volunteers (usually over phone); reviewed information
prepared by volunteers:
Volunteer Coordinators
Beth Bunnenberg and Nancy Huber are the Volunteer Coordinators. They have had the
oversight role for the volunteer effort; contacted volunteers (to arrange for training
session dates, answer questions, etc.); assigned tasks; maintained record keeping on status
of volunteers tasks assignments; set up property files for all Study Priority 1 properties.
Beth and Nancy have spent an enormous amount oftimeon the phone contacting,
coordinating, and answering questions. The volunteer effort would not have happened
without their efforts.
Volunteer Task 1: Windshield Survey ("Yellow" Sheets)
instructions hand-out prepared
training session
54 volunteers participated
completed windshield survey of portions of city that primarily had post-1947 construction
using color-coded maps ("yellow" areas on maps)
Volunteer Task 2: Architects and Builders Index and Bibliography
instruction hand-out prepared
13 volunteers participated and completed gathering of information on architects and
builders from building permit index
7 volunteers reviewed City Directories and compiled information on Architects and
Builders
information compiled in 6 notebooks; notebooks are currently in reference section of
library and are being used by volunteers on Task 11; will be permanently available to all
researchers in Palo Alto (part of Palo Alto archive).
Information also computerized by 2 volunteers
Volunteer Task 3: Historic Contexts
instruction hand-out prepared
14 volunteers preparing the following historic contexts: Aviation, Chinese, Japanese,
Agriculture and Truck Farming, Housing, Blacks/Afro~Americans, Communications,
Harbor and Bay Lands, Schools’ History.
3
Still to be assigned: Electronics, Philippines, Industry during WWI and WWII,
Automobiles, Christmas Tree Lane, Women in Palo Alto.
Historic Contexts will be used in preparing evaluations of historic properties. Historic
contexts will become permanent part of Palo Alto archives.
Volunteer Task 4: Architectural Journals Research
instruction hand-out prepared
received information on architects in Palo Alto from volunteer in Santa Rosa (name) from
his collection of research in architectural journals.
This information will be indexed by Dames & Moore for use in evaluating historic
properties.
At end of project will be put into Palo Alto archives.
Volunteer Task 5: Census Records
instruction hand-out prepared
2 volunteers xeroxed population manuscripts for 1900, 1910, and 1920 U.S. Census in
Palo Alto. Also information on population manuscripts for Mayfield.
This information is currently in reference section of library and are being used by
volunteers on Task 11;
will be permanently available to all researchers in Palo Alto (part of Palo Alto archive).
Volunteer Task 6: Sanborn Maps
instruction hand-out prepared
1 volunteer ordered information through Library of Congress in Washington, D.C. and
contacted companies to obtain pricing information on xeroxing.
Xerox copies of Sanborn Maps for Palo Alto and Mayfield now available in Palo Alto
archives;
currently being used by volunteers on Task 11;
will be permanently available to all researchers in Palo Alto.
Volunteer Task 7: Survey Photos
instruction hand-out prepared
training sessions conducted (7 January and 19 February)
10 volunteers took B&W, 35mm photographs of all Study Priority 1 properties, prepared
captions, labeled, and put in archival sleeves.
This information has been filed into individual property folders for all Study Priority 1
properties; ’
4
o
will be used on DPR523A record;
will be used by Dames & Moore in preparing evaluations;
information will become part of Palo Alto archive.
Volunteer Task 8: Field Survey
O
o
instruction hand-out and field survey forms prepared
training sessions conducted (15 January and 11, 19 February)
52 volunteers conducted field survey of all Study Priority 1 properties andfilled out field
survey forms.
This information has been filed into individual property folders for all Study Priority 1
properties;
will be used on DPR523A record;
will be used by Dames & Moore in preparing evaluations;
information will become part of Palo Alto archive.
Volunteer Task 9: Computer Input for Primary forms
o
0
o
instruction hand-out prepared and given to Nancy Huber.
Volunteers contacted about this task.
After revision tO scope (8 June) it was decided that this portion of the project could be
best done by Dames & Moore.
(No Task 10)
Volunteer Task 11: Research on Individual Properties
O
o
o
o
instruction hand-out and field survey forms prepared
training sessions conducted (28, 29 April; May; 18 June; 15 July); Dames & Moore also
available in Palo Alto Library during May and June to assist volunteers.
to date 55 volunteers trained and working on research on individual properties on Study
Priority 1 (3 more volunteers have expressed interest but have not been able to attend a
training session).
Approximately 110 properties assigned to date,
Will be used by Dames & Moore in preparing evaluations and DPR523 records
information files in individual property files
property files become part of Palo Alto archive.
5
Other issues related to Survey
Professorville
*Field checked properties in Professorville district; noted noncontributing properties
o Provided information to Virginia Warheit in memo (2 April 1998) and discussed with
her.
Draft list of potential historic Districts
* Reviewed information gathered in Initial Survey to prepare draft list of potential historic
districts in Palo Alto
*Provided information to Virginia Warheit in memo(2 April 1998) and discussed with
her.
Review of potential Hamilton Emerson District
o Reviewed ARG report on 200-226 Hamilton and 611-619 Emerson in relationship to
potential historic district.
*Field reconnaissance of potential historic district.
*Prepared memo to George White on historical significance of these two properties and
their relationship to a potential historic district (18 May 1998; revised 26 May 1998).
SOFA Specific Area Plan
* Met with Alison Kendal and discussed issues related to historic properties located in
SOFA.
National Trust Easements on 601 Melville
* Received phone call from National Trust on Historic Preservation related to possible
National Trust easements for 601 Melville (March 1998).
St. Ann’s
¯ Discussions related to historical significance of St. Ann’s.
Roth Clinic
* Met with member of community who provided research materials on Roth Clinic.
Phase 2
Met with Planning Staff on issues relate to possibility of surveying Study Priority 2
properties.
Prepared memo that outlined a work plan (18 May 1998)
Prepared revisions for scope of work (8 June through 31 August 1998) in order to review
Study Priority 2 properties (submitted 3 June 1998)
Review of Study Priority 2 properties (per revisions to scope)
o Reviewed Study Priority Lists and all other information gathered during project
6
o
Counted Study Priority 2 properties by dates: 650 (1945-1947); 800 (1931-1944); 1250
(1890-1930)
Began discussins with SHPO on methodology to streamline evaluation process.
Met with SHPO on 14 July 1998 and described our methodology approach; SHPO agreed
with our approach.
Preparing memo on methodology for SI-1PO review
Hired research assistant (began work on 13 July) to assist M.Corbett.
Hired researcher to gather information on Palo Alto architects/builders from information
not available in Palo Alto.
Discussed issues related to Public Information on the Historic Ordinance and Survey.
Prepared status report for project to date.
Prepared outlines of work approaches for work that could be completed on Study Priority
1 by 15 October and by 15 January (3 options).
7
State of CaJifornia w The Resources Agency
i
DEPAR~?,,IENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
PRIMARY RECORD
Other Listings
Review Code ~
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
NRHP Status Code 2F
Reviewer Date
Page 1 of 4 Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 381 Guinda Street
P1. Other Identifier:
P2.Location:t~Not for Publication []Unrestricted a. County Santa Clara
and (P2b and P2c or P2d. Attach a Location Map as necessary.)
b. USGS 7.5’ Quad Date T ; R ;1/4 of 1/4 of Sec
c. Address: 381 Guinda Street City Palo AIto Z~p 94301
d. UTM: (Give more than one for large and/linear resources);mE/
e. Other Locational Data (Enter Parcel #, legal description, directions to resource, elevation, etc., as appropriate)
mN
Boa,
P3.
Parcel No. 003-03-007
Description’([~escfibe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries)
This is a textbook Craftsman Bungalow residence located on a large (70’ x 125’) Downtown North corner lot near San Francisquito
Creek. The scale and detail of this potential landmark strives to mimic the "ultimate bungalows" designed and executed bySouthern
Cafifomia architects and brothers, Chades and Henry Greene ("A Field Guide to American Houses," Virginia and Lee McAlester,
pg.454). The substantial two-story Bungalow was built in 1909 for the Gibson family. After a short stay, the Gibsons sold the
property to native San Franciscan salesman, Frank G. Farren, in ’1914. While Farren never married, he lived at 381 Guinda with his
sister and other family members for decades.
The beautifully landscaped lot features citrus trees, camellias, and mature magnolias that proudly surround the corner structure. An
18" concrete aggregate retaining wall was added at the lot perimeter in 1965. Signature features of the outstanding structure include
the medium-pitched, side-gabled roof, which is clad in black stained wood shingles; wide overhanging eaves with exposed rafters
and alternating triangular-shaped braces and exposed beams under gable ends; exterior walls clad in painted wood shingles; and
prominent covered porch at right front corner with rectangular-shaped corner column resting on a solid balustrade clad in
P3b. Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) HP2- Single Family Property
P4. Resources Present ~ Building [] Structure ~ Object [] Site [] District [] Element of District [] Other (Isolates, etc.)
i P5a. Photograph or Drawing (Photograph required for buildings, structures, and objects) P5b. Descdpti0n of Photo: (View, date, accession #}
381 Guinda, front comer facade
P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources:
[] Prehistoric ~ Historic [] Both
1909
P7. Owner and Address
Dave Baszuc/d and Jan E//ison Baszucki140 Spruce AvenueMenlo Park, CA 94025
P8. Recorded by: (Name, affiliation, and address)
Catherine Watts, Barbara Judy Preservation Architect
P9. Date Recorded: 2/5/98
PIO. Survey Type: (DEscribe)
Reconnaissance
P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none")
Attachments ~ NONE _% Continuation Sheet ~ District Record E Rock Art Record~ Loca~on Map ~; Building, Structure, and Objecl Record ~ Linear Feature Record I- Adifact Record~ Sketch Map ~ ArchaeolOgical Record [] Milling Station Record r- Photograph Record
Photo Conhnua~on
Other:. (List)
IState of ~..~difomia --.The Resources Agency Primary #DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI #CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial
Page 2 of 4 Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 381Guinda Street
Recorded by: Catherine Watts, Barbara Judy Preservation Architect Date 2/5/98 [] Continuation [] update
shingles, wood plank stoop, large fixed sash window at left interior next to the monumental front door with glazed panel, wide and unique
French doors with two divided lites, and spectacular clinker brick chimney piercing through ~the roof to left of French doors. Two
additional clinker brick chimneys pierce the structure at left and right rear.
A particularly unique feature of this detailed Bungalow is the second-story sleeping porch centrally located on the right facade. The
recessed covered porch features exposed beams at simulated cantilever, square classical columns that Support a trellis, a tongue and
groove ceiling at interior, and double hung wood sash windows that flank the opening. There is a central gabled dormer at front facade
with exposed rafter ends and paired double hung wood sash windows. The rear facade features a large gabled extension with altemating
rake treatment similar to the main gable. Typical windows are large double hung wood sash grouped throughout structure. There is a
detached, period, single-car garage facing Lytton Avenue which is similar in detail to the main residence and features overgrown ivy and
plank double doors.
This substantial Craftsman residence dominates the surrounding neighborhood of one- to one-and-a.half.story period residences.
These smaller scale residences employ a variety of styles, including Spanish Eclectic, Tudor, and Craftsman Bungalows. 381 Guinda,
and its Neoclassical neighbor at 365 Guinda, are part of an ensemble of substantial residences that line Palo Alto Avenue and adjacent
lots. Other examples of this ensemble include 121 Waverley, previously designated a Historic Landmark residence.
Supplemental Photograph or Drawing Description of Photo: (View, date, accession #)
381 Guinda, front porch detail
DPR 523L (1/95) Sa,~ B~enaven~Jra Research Associates
~t~te of California m The Resources AgencyDEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION
CONTINUATION SHEET
Primary #
HRI #
Trinomial
Page 3 of 4 Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 381 Guinda Street
Recorded by: Catherine Watts, Barbara Judy Preservation Architect Date 2/5/98 [] Continuation [] Update
Supplemental Photograph or Drawing Description 0f Photo: (View, date, accession if)
381 Guinda, sleeping porch detail at right
facade
DPR 523L (1/95)San ~Jenaventura Resea,’c~ Associates
State of Califomia ~ The Resources AgencyDEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Primary #
BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD HRI #
Page 4 of 4 NRHP Status Code
Resource Name or #: (Assigned by recorder) 381 Guinda Street
2F
B1. Historic Name:
B2. Common Name:
B3. Original Use:Residential B4. Present Use:
BS. Architectural Style: G. raftsman Bungalow
B6. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations’)
Residential
B7.Moved?[] No []Yes [] Unknown Date
BS.Related Features:
Original Location:
B9a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder:Unknown
B10. Significance: Theme: Architectural Area:
Period of Significance: 1909-1940 Property Type: Applicable Criteria: 2F
(Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, pedod ,~nd geographic scope. AJso address integrity.)
The building, in its scale, size, and setting, supports the historic character of its district and employs period architectural themes
characteristic of Pa/o Alto residences of the late 1900s-1940s.
B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes)
B12. References:
Palo Alto Planning DepL, BODS files
Palo Alto City Directories
Sanborn Fire Insurance Co. Maps, 1924, 1945
Palo Alto Times, 12/24/8, 9/5/45, 2/24/68
"A Field Guide to American Houses"
B13. Remarks:
B14.Evaluator: Barbara Judy
Date of Evaluation: 2/6/98
(This space reserved for official comments.)
HP2 - Single Family Property.
(Sketch Map with norlh arrow required.)
Attachment D
DAMES & MOORE
A DAMES & MOORE GROUP COMPANy
June 3, 1998
221 Main Street. Suite 6111)
San Francisco. CA 941!)5-1917
415 896 5858 Tel
415 882 9261 Fax
Virginia Warheit, Senior Planner
Planning Division
Department of Planning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto
250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Dear Virginia:
Revision of Scope for 8 June through 31 August
1998 for Contract No. C8099994
Consulting Services Regarding Historic
Preservation, City of Palo Alto, California
D&M Job. No. 00321-006-047
The City Council at their meeting on 26 May directed the Palo Alto Planning staff to work with
Dames & Moore to "change course" on the intensive survey project (Task 4) with the new
priority to be reducing the number of properties in the Study Priority 2 category and then
proceeding to complete.the survey of both Study Priority 1 and 2 properties. Your memo (28
May 1998) directed Dames & Moore to identify a revised scope of work based on the City
Council’s direction.
Please find enclosed a revision to the scope of work for 8 June through 31 August 1998. This
revision is based on my memo to you (18 May 1998) and our discussions on Monday (1 June
1998). It identifies .the following: 1) status of work in current scope; 2) revised scope for 8 June
through 31 August 1998; and 3) remaining budget.
I. STATUS OF WORK IN EXISTING SCOPE OF WORK
Task 1: Project Management
Task 1 includes project management including routine project management tasks and preparation
of a monthly memo on the summary of the progress of each task to accompany the monthly
invoice. Task 1 activities will continue throughout the course of the contract.
o\task 1 ~’evscope.let
Ofl3ces Worldwide
Virginia Warheit, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto
June 3, 1998
Page 2
Task 2: Establishing and Organizing the Methodology and Process for Revising the
Historic Preservation Ordinance and Updating the Historic Inventory
Dames & Moore’s work under Task 2 has been completed. This includes Task 2A: Developing
Methodology for Intensive Survey; Task 2 B: Initial Survey; Task 2C: Identification of Policy
Issues; and Task 2D: Public Participation.
Task 3: Revise the Historic Preservation Ordinance
Dames & Moore’s work under Task 3 has been completed.
Task 4: Update the Historic Inventory
The status of ongoing work under Task 4 is as follows:
Task 4A: Intensive Survey. The work on the Intensive Survey is currently underway. Progress
to date on the subtasks is as follows:/
Task 4.A.l: Volunteer Training Sessions. Volunteer training sessions have been
conducted and thetasks assigned for the following volunteer tasks:
Volunteer Task 1: Yellow Sheets on Windshield Survey. Completed,
Volunteer Task 2: Architects and Builders Index and Bibliography. Assigned
to volunteers; work completed on index; bibliography work is ongoing.
Volunteer Task 3: Historic Contexts. Assigned following historic contexts to
volunteers and work is ongoing.
Dab\palo\tasklkrevscope.let
Offices Worldwide
Virginia Warheit, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto
June 3, 1998
Page 3
Volunteer Task 4: Architectural journals research. Assigned to volunteer and
work is ongoing.
Volunteer Task 5: Census Records. Assigned to volunteers and work is
ongoing.
Volunteer Task 6: Sanborn maps. Assigned to volunteers and work is
completed.
Volunteer Task 7: Survey photos. Assigned to volunteers and work isbasically
completed for Study Priority 1 properties.
Volunteer Task 8: Field Survey. Volunteer training sessions (7 and 15 January
and 3, 11, 19 February) for field survey are complete (we will probably be
conducting additional training sessions this fall in "Phase 2" when properties from
Study Priority 2 are assigned). The volunteer coordinators have assigned all Study
Priority 1 properties to the volunteers and the field survey by volunteers is 95%
complete. (See Task 4.A.2.)
Volunteer Task 9: Input for Primary forms. Instructions given to Nancy
Huber on March 26 for specific portions of the information on primary forms that
can be completed by volunteers. She is coordinating volunteers that are inputting
data.
Volunteer Task 10: Training for Research. Michael Corbett has conducted
training sessions for research on 28 April and 7, 13, 14, and 20 May. (See Task
4.A.3 below). Training for research will continue throughout the summer and into
’Phase 2" as new volunteers sign up for this task.
Dab\palo\task Ih’evscope.let
Offices Worldwide
DAMES & MOORE GROUP COMPANy
Virginia Warheit, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto
June 3, 1998
Page 4
Task 4.A.2: Field Survey and Field Form. Basically the volunteer coordinators have
assigned all Study Priority 1 properties and the field survey by volunteers is 95%
complete. (See Task 4.A. 1 for information on training sessions.)
Task 4A. 3. Research. Training sessions for research have been conducted (see task 4.1)
and research has been assigned for Study Priority 1 properties. Volunteers are currently
doing research on Study Priority 1 properties and will continue doing this throughout the
summer.
Michael Corbett is currently available in the Palo Alto Public Library to the volunteers on
Tuesdays and Thursdays of each week to either conduct ongoing training for Research
(Task 4.A.3) or answer questions related to research or any of the other volunteer tasks.
Task 4.A.4: California Historic Inventory (DPR523) Forms and Historic Contexts.
The work related to completing the DPR 523 forms will be completed during "Phase 2".
The historic contexts have been assigned (See Task 4A. 1); Michael Corbett continues to
work with the specific volunteers assigned to each historic context. We expect that.
additional historic contexts will be assigned to volunteers during "Phase 2."
/Task 4.A.5: Meetings. The scope specified that Michael Corbett would meet with
volunteers to monitor progress of the Intensive Survey and answer questions and advise.
Dames & Moore’s monthly progress memos to Virginia Warheit have provided details of
these ongoing meetings. Michael Corbett is currently available to the volunteers in the
Palo Alto Public Library on Tuesdays and Thursdays of each week to either conduct
ongoing training or answer questions related to research or any of the other volunteer
tasks. This support will continue throughout the summer and into "Phase 2."
Task 4B: Preparation of Revised Historic Inventory and Final Report. Work related to this
task will be completed during "Phase 2."
Task 4C: Organization, Presentation, and Storage of Survey Data. Work related to this task
will be completed during "Phase 2."
Dab\palo\taskl~’evscope.let
Offices Worldwide
DAMES & MOORE
Virginia Warheit, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto
Jtme 3, 1998
Page 5
II. REVISED SCOPE FOR 8 JUNE THROUGH 31 AUGUST 1998
At the Council’s direction the update of the historic inventory and intensive survey will be
expanded to include the further revision of Study Priorities 2 so that the project can evaluate all
properties in Study Priorities 1 and 2. This is being called "Phase 2."
As requested in order to accommodate this change of direction, Dames & Moore has prepared a
revision to the scope of work for Task 4A (Intensive Survey)between 8 June and 31 August
1998. Work will consist of the following:
1) Michael Corbett will continue to meet with volunteers to assist them on their work
related to Study Priority 1 properties.
He will also begin work on revising Study Priority 2 property list on 8 June 1998. We
will review the properties on Study Priority 1 to further refine this list (i.e. get
construction dates on schools). Dames & Moore expects that the majority of the
properties in Study Priority 2 will after further review NOT be eligible for the NRHP.
We will review these properties in order to define which properties require further
study/research/evaluation and which properties Can be removed from the Study Priority 1
and 2 lists. At our meeting with you on 15 May, Michael pointed out that a great majority
of these Study Priority 2 properties are properties built after WWII in large tracts. The
review of these properties can probably be accelerated by reviewing the neighborhoods.
This will involve Michael reviewing Study Priority 2 properties, doing some additional
research and preparing historic contexts for neighborhoods, and meeting with SHPO to
discuss our approach and how we came up with Study Priorities.
We will provide Virginia Warheit a revised Study Priority 1 and 2 lists within 12 weeks
following the approval of the revision to the scope of work (anticipated to be 8 September
1998).
Dab\palo\task lh’evscope.let
Offices Worldwide
Virginia Warheit, Senior Planner
Department of Planning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto
June 3, 1998
Page 6
2) Denise Bradley will work with Virginia Warheit to preparean addition to the scope of
work for "Phase 2" to begin, on 1 September 1998. She will prepare a draft addition to
the scope of work by 8 July 1998 for Virginia Warheit’s review. She will meet with
Virginia Warheit on 8 July 1998 to discuss to draft addition to scope of work.
She will meet with Volunteer Coordinators to discuss organizational needs for volunteers
to continue effort into "Phase 2".
She will assist Michael Corbett, as required.
3) Volunteers will continue work on research related to Study Priority 1 properties.
4) The Palo Alto planning staff have identified the need to provide a public information
management aspect to the project so that the general public is provided with more
information on the survey and the Historic Ordinance issues. On 10 July 1998, Denise
Bradley will bring Mary Ann Parker (Parker Designs) to meet with members of the Palo
Alto staff to discuss the projects issues/needs and a plan of action for providing an
informational brochureon the survey and ordinance issues, ongoing updates on the status
of the project, and other elements of public information management.
III. REMAINING BUDGET
As of the end-of-the-day last Friday (29 May 1998), $55, 185 remained in the budget (this
includes the approximately $18,000 that was not used in Task 3 related to aspects of Bruce
Anderson’s work.) This remaining $55,185 will be used to undertake the revisions to the scope
of work outlined above. Any budget remaining on 1 September 1998 will be used in "Phase 2."
(Please note that approximately $2,783 of this $55,185 will have been spent during the week of 1
June through 5 June 1998 related to ongoing work performed by Denise Bradley and Michael
Corbett.)
Dab\palo\ta~klh’evscope.let
Offices Worldwide
DAMES & MOORE
,,.i~., ~.~.~. ] A I:)A~E.S & MOORE GROUP COMPANy
Virginia Warheit, Senior Planner
¯ Department of Planning and Community Environment
City of Palo Alto
June 3, 1998
Page 7
If you have any questions related to thes~ revisions to the scope, please call me at (415) 243-
3723.
As specified in Section 15.5 of the Contract No. C8099994 between the City of Palo Alto and
Dames & Moore, Inc., the contract may be amended by a written instrument signed by the
parties. The City Manager is authorized to execute any amendments on behalf of the City.
Please indicate your acceptance of these revisions to the scope of work for 8 June through 31
August 1998 by signing below and returning a copy of this letter to: Dames & Moore, 221 Main
Street, Suite 200, San Francisco, CA 94105, Attn: Denise Bradley.
Very truly yours,
Director
Project Manager
Date
Project ~anager Date
Dab\palo\task lkrevscope.lct
Offices Worldwide
~City of Palo Alto
C~ty Manager’s Report
NO REPORT ISSUED WITH THIS NUMBER
CiVlR: 338:98